Document text
Machine-read from the scan, so expect some errors. Lines that couldn’t be read are left out.
Page 1
It is clear from our letter of January 3, that the Aiierican College of RaYdiology has tzken a lot of trouble to respond to my request for advice about the radiation experiments of Dr. Eugene Saenger, and I apprccicte your respon- . any points which still-concern me. In addition, I appreciate your willingness to discuss ?4y questions originally fell into five categories: I. Animal Data and Basis For Trying This Therapy 11. Follow-up Studies To Determine Effects 111. Control Groups To Determine Helpfulness or Harnfulness . IV. Private Patients * V. Trickery, Purpose, Risk You seela to have answered questioq number four.. I will keep my questions today in tho sane categories as before. Considering all the conclusioas which your teanl has reached, and considering the small n w b o r of patients involvcd (821, I hope and expect that the attached questions will not be difficult.
Page 2
The ACR report confirms that the rd is no controlgroup or systematic effort to assess comparative benef it or risk of Dr. Saenger's special cancer therapy. The ACR report confirms that the patients were bot thoroughly informed about the extra discomfort, the military aspects, or the possibly lethal effects. The ACR report confirms that t'ho patients were given hope that the treatment night prolong their lives, shrink their tumors, retard development of netastases, and/or relieve their pain. The ACR report fails sa farto show that there was basis in prior animal o r human experiments to just i - f y offering this hope. The ACR report confirms that the mixed results can not be correlated with a specific treatment because f erknt kinds of treatment . The ACR report fails so farto deal with the possible ham suffered by some patients in the course of this